Finneran eyes splitting amendment

House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran signaled yesterday that he is ready to abandon his support for a compromise constitutional amendment that both bans gay marriage and creates civil unions, suggesting instead that the two approaches be split into separate measures for voters to consider.

Finneran presented the idea in a meeting with Senate President Robert E. Travaglini, who cosponsored the compromise with Finneran and has been counting on the House speaker to round up votes for its passage. Without Finneran, who presides over a 160-member body, as opposed to the 40 lawmakers in the Senate, Travaglini could have a tough time winning passage of the measure, which combines civil unions and a ban on gay marriage.

Senate leaders said they were surprised by Finneran's latest proposal and said they planned to stick with the compromise measure.

"The president is still very much engaged with getting the votes for the measure that he and the speaker have sponsored," said Senate Majority Leader Frederick E. Berry. "There's no serious consideration of anything else, at least on our side. As far as the president is concerned, he did not give [Finneran's idea] serious consideration."

Finneran declined to comment on the new proposal. His critics have questioned for weeks whether the speaker, a longtime foe of gay marriage and civil unions, was genuinely behind the compromise measure. He has vociferously denied such claims recently, insisting he is absolutely behind the amendment he cosponsored with Travaglini.

But both Finneran and Travaglini have acknowledged this week that they do not have the votes to pass a compromise measure when the Legislature reconvenes its constitutional convention on March 11.

The Finneran-Travaglini compromise measure would ban gay marriage, but create "civil unions for same-sex couples . . . [that] shall provide entirely the same benefits, protections, rights, and responsibilities that are afforded to married couples."

Under the plan Finneran outlined to Travaglini yesterday, the compromise amendment would be divided in two, according to legislative strategists.

Using the language of the earlier amendment, the first measure would say, "It being the public policy of this Commonwealth to protect the unique relationship of marriage, only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Massachusetts."

The second amendment proposal, Senate and House members said, would include language saying that the Legislature "shall establish civil unions," but would call for the Legislature to define at a later date exactly what rights and benefits those unions would include. Leaving the definition to the Legislature has been opposed by some lawmakers, who fear that it would result in narrower rights for gay people.

Finneran did not present any written language to Travaglini, lawmakers said.

The latest developments came little more than a week before the Legislature reconvenes to debate the issue. Legislative leaders want to send voters a proposed constitutional amendment that would eventually derail the Supreme Judicial Court's historic ruling declaring same-sex marriage constitutional in Massachusetts. That ruling goes into effect May 17. The earliest voters could consider the issue is November 2006.

Travaglini, who controls the Legislature's constitutional convention, told Finneran he intends to continue building support for the compromise that would combine both civil unions and a ban on gay marriage, Senate leaders said.

The compromise measure has been panned by opponents and proponents of same-sex nuptials alike, who say it would force opponents of expanded gay rights to vote for civil unions and would also force those who support greater gay rights to "write discrimination into the constitution."

Last month, the Legislature held two marathon joint sessions to debate gay marriage. In the end, all three proposed amendments they voted on were defeated narrowly. One, presented by Finneran in a surprise parliamentary maneuver in the opening moments of debate, lost by just two votes.

Now Finneran is trying still another approach: separate amendments. Representative Michael Festa, who supports gay marriage, said it's clear to him that "this Finneran strategy assumes inherently that [the compromise] goes down" first.

"This is cued up to win the day," said Festa, who has spent the past few weeks polling his colleagues on the compromise plan. "The question remains: Do they [legislative leaders] have the votes for that? But neither have we polled on that, nor they, so any speculation is really premature."

Even though Travaglini appears less than enthusiastic about Finneran's new idea, it remained unclear yesterday whether it is even possible under the rules of the Legislature's constitutional convention to introduce a new amendment at this stage of debate.

Ronald A. Crews, spokesman for the Coalition for Marriage, a group that opposes same-sex marriage, said he believes the maneuver has some potential, given that Finneran took the risk of proposing it yesterday to Travaglini.

"If the speaker, in his wisdom, thinks this is a possibility, then we would support him in this endeavor," Crews said.

"I had heard from some other legislators who like this idea," he said. "The question before the parliamentarians right now is if this is possible. If the speaker is talking to the Senate president about it, it would lead me to believe it's a possibility, and that is encouraging to me."

Although his organization opposes civil unions, Crews said his organization will nonetheless urge like-minded lawmakers to back the Finneran plan because "we do believe it's a positive thing for the voters to debate the issue."

To amend the state's constitution, a majority of lawmakers must approve the measure in two successive sessions, and then a majority of voters must approve the language in a statewide ballot referendum. The soonest voters could weigh in, then, would be November 2006.

Gay rights advocates, who oppose any amendment, say Finneran's new plan offers evidence that the speaker never backed the plan he cosponsored with Travaglini in the first place.

"I think the proposals that the speaker has been floating speak volumes about his support for the Travaglini-Finneran amendment, which is that he appears to want something very different," said Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus.

"I continue to be amazed," she said, "at how hard certain legislators are working to take away our rights and still feel good about themselves, still feel like they're not doing something very, very wrong."

Berry, for his part, said he believes that Travaglini and Finneran will eventually cobble together the support needed to pass their jointly authored plan.

"It was just an idea [Finneran] floated," Berry added, "and he is still working from the same game plan, getting the votes for the compromise."